Here is a court case that seems timely. A city passes an ordinance that bans advertising on vehicles if that advertising is for a third party but allows the advertising if it is for the business that owns the vehicle.

The rationale for the ordinance? Advertising on vehicles “constitutes a distraction to vehicle drivers and to pedestrians alike and therefore affects the safety of the public in the use of the streets.” Result of the case? The city won.

The court case in question, however, did not come from your own town as it grapples with innovative advertising, such as mobile billboards. It was from the U.S. Supreme Court in an opinion decided in 1949, Railway Express Agency versus People of State of New York.

While commercial law doctrine has evolved considerably since Railway Express, the case is instructive on its facts. Here was Railway, a national express freight company, with 1,900 trucks in service. Besides the income it got from deliveries, it sold advertising on the sides of its trucks to entities, such as Camel cigarettes, the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, and the U.S. Navy.

Some of those trucks operated in New York City, and the company ran headlong into a municipal ordinance banning third-party ads on vehicles. Fast forward to the U.S. Supreme Court backing the city’s ban.

ADS ON VEHICLES—HAZARD?

There, the Court responded to several constitutional questions. First, did New York City have the right to ban ads on vehicles on the grounds of traffic safety? More so, was it proper to outlaw only third-party ads while allowing graphics on trucks that just identified its owner?

To the first question, the Court supported the “police power” of New York City. (More generally, this power gives zoning regulations constitutional standing.) Justice Douglas, writing the Court’s opinion, noted that the Court would not weigh evidence “to determine whether the regulation is sound or appropriate, nor is it our function to pass judgment on its wisdom.”

He further commented, “We would be trespassing on one of the most intensely local and specialized of all municipal problems if we held that this regulation had no relation to the traffic problem of New York City. It is the judgment of the local authorities that it does have such a relation. And nothing has been advanced which shows that to be palpably false.”

The second question, banning only third-party ads, turned on an analysis of equal protection of the laws. Here, the Court also deferred to New York City. “The local authorities may well have concluded that those who advertised their own wares on their trucks do not present the same traffic problem in view of the nature or extent of the advertising which they use. It would take a degree of omniscience which we lack to say that such is not the case. If that judgment is correct, the advertising displays that are exempt have less incidence on traffic than those of appellants.”

I dwell on a case that was decided 60 years ago to reinforce this thought: Municipalities have broad authority to enact regulations to protect, among other things, traffic safety. While this discussion usually concerns billboards or on-premise signs, don’t take for granted that a mobile product (see the article on mobile advertising on page 109 in this issue) or digitally printed graphics somehow will escape the attention of the regulators. And note: Some traffic safety interests have their eye on mobile billboards equipped with LED technology.

An example of a "supergraphic."

PLANNERS WAKE UP TO MOBILE BILLBOARDS, SUPERGRAPHICS

At the American Planning Conference last year, attorney John Baker proposed three general rules to planners regarding mobile billboards: (1) “Mobile billboards are subject to local regulation—at least when parked.” (2) “Courts have recognized that portable signs sometimes warrant stricter regulation, so that they aren’t moved to illegal areas.” (3) “However, build a factual record regarding increased traffic risk and visual blight.”

The proposed revisions to the Los Angeles sign code targeted, among other signs, the type of “supergraphics” that typically are digitally printed on mesh fabric.

The LA planning department used this photo of an upcoming movie, starring Will Smith, to make this point in its presentation to the planning commission: “Another type of sign affixed to walls is the supergraphic. Supergraphics are generally very large, are installed very high on the outside of buildings and usually cover windows. Some supergraphics can be seen from miles away.”

From this premise, Los Angeles city planners recommended that “all types of signs displayed on walls be subject to the same regulations.” This would mean, for example, a permanent wall sign used to identify a business would be subject to the same regulations as the temporary graphics used to advertise a movie.

But the planners were not done, proposing a limit of 100 square feet for a wall sign and a height limitation of 35 square feet. (As of this date in late May, the proposed size area is now limited to 300 square feet.) Is this the end of supergraphics in Los Angeles, home to the movie industry? Stay tuned.

Other digitally printed graphics are coming onto planners’ radar. Our industry has printed millions of square feet of point-of-purchase graphics over the past decade. One version in particular takes a national brand (let’s say a well-known beer company) and allows a local pub or restaurant to put local copy onto a banner for outside display.

Image 1: This photo first appeared in the May Sign & Digital Graphics. It is from slide five in the January 2009 presentation by the Los Angeles Department of City Planning to the City Planning Commission. The photo is compressed horizontally.

Image 2: This is what the streetscape actually looks like. This photo was shot with a Canon EOS 5D and a 36mm lens. It gives a field of vision equivalent to what the human eye sees.

Image 3: Now the CSA educational process starts. Here is the “offensive” streetscape with the off-premise billboards removed and with all illegal on-premise signs removed.

Image 4: Now, replace the current poorly designed signs with signage designed and manufactured by quality on-premise sign manufacturers.

Image 5: Or take advantage of contemporary sign technology and replace 18 small signs with two electronic message centers. Finally, design a clean logo that effectively communicates the business, wrap the buildings with a common color and voila! Another American business made better by the on-premise sign industry.

THOSE ‘UGLY BEER BANNERS’ AT THE BAR

For us, it’s just a business model that works. To some planners, however, these signs create visual clutter. Attorney John Baker, at this year’s APA conference, noted “ugly beer signs put on a banner at the bar.” But here is an interesting twist: Baker described some communities that encourage electronic message centers as a way to “reduce blight caused by temporary signs.” Maybe we can make some progress after all.

Since I mentioned the Los Angeles sign code earlier, here is an update (written in late May for the July issue). The proposed sign code worked its way through the LA planning commission and to city council. On May 26, the council agreed on just one item–to delay the debate until a newly elected city attorney could weigh in on the draft. A new 90-day moratorium will go into effect, meaning that it will be September until the new sign code comes up for review again.

I am both impressed and pleased with the lobbying work coordinated by the California Sign Association. CSA worked long and smart with Los Angeles businesses as diverse as Universal Studios, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and scores of property and business owners to craft both strategy and message.

Jeff Aran, the CSA government affairs director, said, “It looks as though city officials are finally paying attention to the devastating impacts the pending ordinance will pose on the on-premise industry.”

“Over the summer, CSA will have the opportunity to conference with staff, which so far has refused to meet with the on-premise industry, which could provide much needed input toward crafting a responsible, reasonable ordinance,” Aran continued.

Now to the pictures (Images 1 through 5) that are shown in a series accompanying this article: Readers will remember my May column that introduced the Los Angeles sign code controversy included a picture of a Los Angeles street, which the city planning department used as a “poster child” of visual clutter.

GRAPPLING WITH A HIGHLY POLITICIZED PROCESS

There’s only one problem—the picture was not a fair and accurate representation of that street. Whether or not the planning department meant to alter the photo to make its case is unknown. I would like to think it was inadvertent. But the sign code drafting process in Los Angeles has been, to this point, highly politicized.

The pictures, other than the first that was shown in my May column, were developed by CSA for informational purposes. Many sign design veterans will recognize the simple brilliance of the streetscape shown, transformed from dismal to dynamic.

While such renderings are a typical part of our sales process, more of those in the public arena need to see the impact of such signage upgrades. If we could just accomplish overall what California has done, we would have a win for the on-premise sign industry and American businesses.